I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

It is a pastoral issue, for the couple to discuss with their priest or spiritual father.

And none of anyone else's beeswax.

Like so much in Orthodoxy, it depends on who you ask . I came across this from Met. Kallistos Ware, written before he was elevated to Met.: "Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 2nd edition, Penguin, 199E p.296.

Then there's this from Fr. Alexander Men: "This is not my own opinion. I have consulted with our bishops and they are of the opinion that a person has a right to practice birth control. Otherwise, they may bring more children into the world than they can support, in which case they will become animals rather than human beings." A. Men', Kul'tura i dukhovnoe vozrozhdenie, (Moscow 1992), pp. 445-450

St. John Chrysostom, I believe, did not countenance artificial contraception or abortion.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed. So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism. Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way. The ABC issue is a good example.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:09:44 PM by ErmyCath »

Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it"). They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right. The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Our Church also says that no one should masterbate, but just about every single male in the Church has done it. The Church says that no one should lie, yet every member of the Church has lied. Does that mean the Church should not just proclaim that these things are not sins?

« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:13:13 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.

Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it"). They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

I wasn't judging those luminaries, one of whom was St. John Chrysostom, on whether they were right or wrong about the matter. That's above my pay-grade, as it were. Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to? That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment . I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

This is what I have heard, too, from a couple of Orthodox priests.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

God is a God of love. You cannot have one all-encompassing ruling on everything and expect that the ruling will fit everyone. A doctor may prescribe 2 different treatments to two different people with the same condition. That doesn't mean there's no medical standards or no authoritative medical book. The Church is a hospital, not a law court.

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to? That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

Quote

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to? That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

Quote

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed. So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism. Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way. The ABC issue is a good example.

Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

It means the Church Laws are not helping anyone.

It means that those who disobey the law are not "helped" by it, and it probably also means that their catechesis is sorely lacking--a major concern, imho, in the Catholic Church today, especially...well...pretty much everywhere. It also means that people, being people, break laws and have done so since Adam took the apple offered by Eve.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed. So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism. Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way. The ABC issue is a good example.

Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.

After all, we are not evangelicals.

You have never encountered a priest or bishop providing a personal interpretation? Theologians, who are normally priests and bishops, do this all the time -- in the realms of faith and morals.

I agree the dogma is not up for debate, but its application certainly is. As I pointed out, there is a general rule against ABC, but there are also certain situations where it may be used without sin.

Moreover, there is a general rule against avoiding conception. Yet, spouses may legitimately do so with NFP under certain circumstances. But, then, NFP may be sinful when used with an illegitimate end in mind. Our Orthodox posters have informed us that their teaching is the same for ABC...

The question, then, is whether there is a marked difference between ABC and NFP...

Really now... is there really much difference between the Catholic and Orthodox perspective here? The Orthodox perspective adds another layer of assistance for the laity by placing these issues under the glance of a priest, which would be helpful for Catholics using NFP to do voluntarily, if they could find a priest to advise them...

« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:40:17 PM by ErmyCath »

Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with theresponsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure doesnot depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. Itmust be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature ofthe human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutualself-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goalcannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerelypracticed. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may notundertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy bythe teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birthcontrol are immoral and blameworthy? Yes. In Humanae Vitae, thefirst-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control isabortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church hasfrequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual ortemporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemnstubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of theconjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of itsnatural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to renderprocreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms includethe Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this. But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same? The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.

Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo

No one here disagrees with this. But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same? The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.

on whether they were right or wrong about the matter. That's above my pay-grade, as it were. Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.

It is exactly that. Those who (mostly celibates with issues with marriage) have tried to make it into a dogmatic issue have succeeded only in making fools of themselves.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment . I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.

So far such inquirers have not been satisfied by satisfactory answers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with theresponsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure doesnot depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. Itmust be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature ofthe human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutualself-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goalcannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerelypracticed. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may notundertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy bythe teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birthcontrol are immoral and blameworthy? Yes. In Humanae Vitae, thefirst-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control isabortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church hasfrequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual ortemporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemnstubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of theconjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of itsnatural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to renderprocreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms includethe Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with theresponsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure doesnot depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. Itmust be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature ofthe human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutualself-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goalcannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerelypracticed. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may notundertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy bythe teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birthcontrol are immoral and blameworthy? Yes. In Humanae Vitae, thefirst-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control isabortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church hasfrequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual ortemporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemnstubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of theconjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of itsnatural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to renderprocreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms includethe Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.